Preview — Mutual Aid
by Pyotr Kropotkin

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

Writing partly in response to Social Darwinism, Kropotkin draws on his scientific knowledge to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation. After examining the evidence of cooperation in nonhuman animals, pre-feudal societies, medieval cities, and in modern times, he concludes that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of the species and tWriting partly in response to Social Darwinism, Kropotkin draws on his scientific knowledge to illustrate the phenomenon of cooperation. After examining the evidence of cooperation in nonhuman animals, pre-feudal societies, medieval cities, and in modern times, he concludes that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of the species and the ability to survive....more

Community Reviews

This book cannot be overestimated in importance. It was written in response to Social Darwinism (and the horrifying excuse Social Darwinism gave for mass extermination of races), based on Kropotkin's scientific experiences in Siberia concerning cooperation in nonhuman animals, as well as his studies of savages, barbarians, the medieval city, and ourselves. This book concludes that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of the species and the ability to surviveThis book cannot be overestimated in importance. It was written in response to Social Darwinism (and the horrifying excuse Social Darwinism gave for mass extermination of races), based on Kropotkin's scientific experiences in Siberia concerning cooperation in nonhuman animals, as well as his studies of savages, barbarians, the medieval city, and ourselves. This book concludes that cooperation and mutual aid are the most important factors in the evolution of the species and the ability to survive. Very much at the forefront of cultural battles (namely the attempt to hold off fascism). However, it would be a mistake to write this very much scientific book off for its ideological underpinnings (and equally a mistake to write it off ideologically for its scientific biases).

In Natural History Magazine (1997), Stephen Jay Gould emphasizes that Kropotkin’s basic argument is correct, although in comparison to up-to-date evolutionary (and revolutionary!) understandings, it does have a few flaws, one technical and one general:

'If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly. If Kropotkin drew inappropriate hope for social reform from his concept of nature, other Darwinians had erred just as firmly (and for motives that most of us would now decry) in justifying imperial conquest, racism, and oppression of industrial workers as the harsh outcome of natural selection in the competitive mode.'

'In judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, be doubly suspicious. Be especially wary of arguments that find kindness, mutuality, synergism, harmony – the very elements that we strive mightily, and so often unsuccessfully, to put into our own lives – intrinsically in nature.'

('Kropotkin was no crackpot', Stephen Jay Gould)

Humanity must therefore not forget that civilization is our battleground and that we must make civilization ours to make Nature ours. This book can give dispossessed folk too much of a scientific bias, too often turning away from the memory of historical/material struggles to the weak argument of a permanent, natural, biological state of freedom, of the glorification of the so-called golden age of primitive man.

A book that shows how science and society do not mutually exclude the other. Absolutely essential reading for understanding our battles of ideology and also for understanding the development of scientific understandings of evolution. Both of those themes continue in extreme importance well into the present.

MiquixoteAgreed. Truth is a hard thing to pin down. We must however all beware of ideological bias even in academia. For example, on an even thornier side: HowAgreed. Truth is a hard thing to pin down. We must however all beware of ideological bias even in academia. For example, on an even thornier side: How so-called scientific theories from Marx, Keynes, and Hayek can all have exemplary amounts of academic support has questionable underpinnings.

Evolutionary theory must also be affected, unless each theory is entirely falsifiable (the thorniness of the details indicates a lack of corraboration though, not of the general truth of evolution, but of its details ).

Both Gould and Dawkins have exemplary academic support (just check the amount of citations each have). Currently Dawkins is probably the most accepted, but this can change with new research rather quickly depending on ideological, economic, or political maneuvering. The mainstream-ness of a theory is never completely dependent on scientific corraboration over time....more
Mar 22, 2014 02:13AM

I'd only heard of him as an anarchist until I began to read about emotion & the beginnings of ethics in animals -- in such authors as Frans de Waal -- where he was always mentioned as a forerunner. One of those books sent me to Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought... which was totally interesting, as a lesson in how scientific understandings differ in different environments. Kropotkin wasn't on his own, but part of a Russian trend. I wish evolutiI'd only heard of him as an anarchist until I began to read about emotion & the beginnings of ethics in animals -- in such authors as Frans de Waal -- where he was always mentioned as a forerunner. One of those books sent me to Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought... which was totally interesting, as a lesson in how scientific understandings differ in different environments. Kropotkin wasn't on his own, but part of a Russian trend. I wish evolutionary theory had continued on its Russian path, or perhaps, that I lived there.

At last I read the man himself. At this stage he's preaching to the converted, but he has great examples/anecdotes, about animal cooperation. From the sociability of animals he moves to human sociability, in 'savages', 'barbarians' and onto medieval & later. I was most interested in savage and barbarian society, where again, he's preaching to the choir, but that makes this book a feel-good read for me and in fact an escape from other lines of thought. I didn't read the later history. But community efforts in European medieval cities was a feature section. I've been struck elsewhere in the world by the independence of cities, community leadership in place of what we call government... this sheds light thereon. ...more

Peter Kropotkin is one of the most noteworthy anarchist thinkers over the last two centuries. As with other political thinkers, so, too, with Kropotkin--his analysis of human nature is critical for understanding his overall philosophical position. For his view of human nature, "Mutual Aid" is a key for understanding his views. His work is a harbinger of more recent studies of sociobiology, many of which explore the roots of altruism--human and otherwise.

Much of his thinking on the nature of socPeter Kropotkin is one of the most noteworthy anarchist thinkers over the last two centuries. As with other political thinkers, so, too, with Kropotkin--his analysis of human nature is critical for understanding his overall philosophical position. For his view of human nature, "Mutual Aid" is a key for understanding his views. His work is a harbinger of more recent studies of sociobiology, many of which explore the roots of altruism--human and otherwise.

Much of his thinking on the nature of society was formed when he was observing the behavior of animals in Siberia. While assigned to a Siberian regiment of the Russian military, Kropotkin did innovative original work on geography and geology as well as the study of animal behavior. His observation of animals led him to respond to Huxley's assertion that natural selection was based on keen competition among animals with the following statement: ". . .wherever I saw animal life in abundance, as, for instance, on the lakes where scores of species and millions of individuals came together to rear their progeny; in the colonies of rodents; in the migration of birds which took place at that time on a truly American scale along the Usuri; and especially in a migration of fallow-deer which I witnessed on the Amur, and during which scores of thousands of these animals came together from an immense territory, flying before the coming snow, in order to cross the Amur where it is narrowest--in all these scenes of animal life which passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which made me suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of each species, and its further evolution."

He synthesized his observations of animals within a species cooperating with one another and concluded that, in the struggle for life, cooperation was at least as important as competition. Kropotkin did not argue that competition was unimportant in the natural selection process. However, he did emphasize that mutual aid was a factor that many Darwinists (although, as Kropotkin made clear, not Darwin himself) ignored. The data that Kropotkin utilized came from many different animal species.

Kropotkin goes on to speculate about the survival value of cooperative behavior. He states that: "Life in societies enables the feeblest insects, the feeblest birds, and the feeblest mammals to resist, or to protect themselves from, the most terrible birds and beasts of prey; it permits longevity; in enables the species to rear its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its progeny with the least waste of energy and to maintain its numbers albeit a very slow birth rate; it enables the gregarious animals to migrate in search of new abodes. Furthermore, cooperation facilitates the development of intelligence, since that quality is so important for social life among animals."

Kropotkin is not content to rest his case at this point. He subsequently indicates the likely course of human evolution and the role played by cooperation. He adopts the method of using existing societies at differing levels of socio-cultural complexity to speculate about the course of human socio-cultural evolution. Kropotkin argues that, at each stage, mutual aid is apparent and important for humans. Even in the period dominated by the great states, the present for Kropotkin, mutual aid institutions still flourished despite the state's intimidating presence.

Thus, Kropotkin's view of human nature is, ultimately, that it is inherently good, i.e. cooperative toward his or her fellow. What of this assertion? Is Kropotkin's view of human nature completely inaccurate and confounded by the available evidence? That is where each reader must evaluate his or her view of humanity's nature and render a judgment on "the anarchist prince."

Kropotkin argues that mutual aid, co-operation, solidarity with one’s neighbors, sociability, have played the leading part in human evolution, not mutual competition. The Darwinian struggle for survival has been with the environment, not with other people. Man is not the warlike being he is claimed to be. “At no period of man’s life were wars the normal state of existence.” He challenges Thomas Hobbes on his view of human nature. Primitive man always preferred peace to war, though migration wasKropotkin argues that mutual aid, co-operation, solidarity with one’s neighbors, sociability, have played the leading part in human evolution, not mutual competition. The Darwinian struggle for survival has been with the environment, not with other people. Man is not the warlike being he is claimed to be. “At no period of man’s life were wars the normal state of existence.” He challenges Thomas Hobbes on his view of human nature. Primitive man always preferred peace to war, though migration was sometimes necessary and often led to war. Mutual aid was absolutely essential to the survival of our human ancestors. He gives examples of co-operation among Bushmen, Hottentots, Eskimos, barbarians, etc.

Medieval people had their craft guilds and communal building projects. In modern times there are labor unions, political societies, clubs, insurance alliances, communal ownership of grazing lands, etc.

He gives examples from the animal kingdom, from beetles to baboons. Mutual aid is the rule within species. Hyenas hunt in packs and beavers work in common. Animals may attack other species, but within species life in societies is the rule. Co-operation is absolutely necessary for survival among small or feeble animals. He challenges some of Darwin’s statements about competition within species.

As clear, relevant and powerful as the day it was written; if not more desperately needed in our present day.

Mutual aid is our evolutionary heritage and ONLY path for the future. We are not meant to struggle to survive all alone but to thrive together.

Paradigm shifted.

------------ "Man is no exception in nature. He is also subject to the great principle of Mutual Aid which grants the best chances of survival to those who best support each other in the struggle for life."

"The craft organizatioAs clear, relevant and powerful as the day it was written; if not more desperately needed in our present day.

Mutual aid is our evolutionary heritage and ONLY path for the future. We are not meant to struggle to survive all alone but to thrive together.

Paradigm shifted.

------------ "Man is no exception in nature. He is also subject to the great principle of Mutual Aid which grants the best chances of survival to those who best support each other in the struggle for life."

"The craft organization required, of course, a close supervision of the craftsman by the guild, and special jurates were always nominated for that purpose. But is is most remarkable that, so long as the [mediæval] cities lived their free life, no complaints were heard about the supervision; while, after the State had stepped in, confiscating property of the guilds and destroying their independence in favor of its own bureaucracy, the complaints became simply countless. On the other hand, the immensity of progress realized in all arts under the mediæval guild system is the best proof that the system was no hinderance to individual initiative. The fact is, that the mediæval guild, like the mediæval parish, 'street,' or 'quarter,' was not a body of citizens placed under the control of State functionaries; it was a union of all men connected with a given trade; jurate buyers of raw produce, sellers of manufactured goods, and artisans—masters, 'compaynes,' and apprentices. For the inner organization of the trade its assembly was sovereign, so long as it did not hamper the other guilds, in which case the matter was brought before the guild of guilds—the city. But there was in it something more than that. It had its own self-jurisdiction, its own military force, its own general assemblies, its own traditions of struggles, glory, and independence, its own relations with other guilds of the same trade in other cities; it had, in a word, a full organic life which could only result from the integrality of the vital functions."

"The Mutual-Aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that it has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history. It was chiefly evolved during periods of peace and prosperity; but when even the greatest calamities befell men—when whole countries were laid waste by wars, and whole populations were decimated by misery, or groaned under the yoke of tyranny—the same tendency continued to live in the villages and among the poorer classes in towns; it still kept them together, and in the long run reacted even upon those ruling, fighting, and devastating minorities which dismissed it as sentimental nonsense. And whenever mankind had to work out a new social organization, adapted to a new phase of development, its constructive genius always drew the elements and the inspiration for the new departure from that same ever-living tendency. New economical and social institutions, in so far as they were a creation of the masses, new ethical systems, and new religions, all have originated from the same source, and the ethical progress of our race, viewed in its broad lines, appears as a gradual extension of the mutual-aid principles from the tribe to always larger and larger agglomerations, so as to finally embrace one day the whole of mankind without respect to its divers creeds, languages and races."

"In short, neither the crushing powers of the centralized State nor the teachings of mutual hatred and pitiless struggle [Social Darwinism] which came, adorned with the attributes of science, from obliging philosophers and sociologists, could weed out the feelings of human solidarity, deeply lodged in men's understanding an heart, because it has been nurtured by all our preceding evolution. What was the outcome of evolution since its earliest stages cannot be overpowered by one of the aspects of that same evolution. And the need of mutual aid and support which had lately taken refuge in the narrow circle of the family, or the slum neighborhoods, in the village, or the secret union of workers, reasserts itself again, even in our modern society, and claims its rights to be, as it has always been, the chief leader towards further progress."

"It is evident that no review of evolution can be complete, unless these two dominant currents are analyzed. However, the self-assertion of the individual or of groups of individuals, their struggles for superiority, and the conflicts which resulted therefrom, have already been analyzed, described, and glorified from time immemorial. In fact, up to the present time, this current alone has received attention from the epical poet, the annalist, the historian, and the sociologist. History, such as it has hitherto been written, is almost entirely a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, military power, autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes' rule have been promoted, established and maintained. The struggles between these forces make, in fact, the substance of history. We may thus take the knowledge of the individual factor in human history as granted—even though there is full room for a new study on the subject on the lines just alluded to; while, on the other side, mutual-aid factor has been hitherto totally lost sight of; it was simply denied or even scoffed at, by the writers of the present and past generations."

"The higher conception of 'no revenge for wrongs,' and of freely giving more than one expects to receive from his neighbours, is proclaimed as being the real principle of morality—a principle superior to mere equivalence, equity, or justice, and more conducive to happiness. And man is appealed to to be guided in his acts, not merely by love, which is always personal, or at the best tribal, but by the perception of his oneness with each human being. In the practice of mutual aid, which we can retrace to the earliest beginnings of evolution, we thus find the positive and undoubted origin of our ethical conceptions; and we can affirm that in the ethical progress of man, mutual support—not mutual struggle—has had the leading part. In its wide extension, even at the present time, we also see the best guarantee of a still loftier evolution of our race."...more

I was expecting more from this book.... I mean, I certainly appreciated Kropotkin's claims that seemed to reject a lot of what we hear about evolution (and its applications to human societies)--ie, that, within the realm of adaptability, etc., mutual aid is as important (if not moreso) than struggle--but I feel like he certainly romanticized quite a few historical social structures that, I think, most anarchists would take issue with (ie, patriarchy, monarchy, etc.). His argument makes clear thaI was expecting more from this book.... I mean, I certainly appreciated Kropotkin's claims that seemed to reject a lot of what we hear about evolution (and its applications to human societies)--ie, that, within the realm of adaptability, etc., mutual aid is as important (if not moreso) than struggle--but I feel like he certainly romanticized quite a few historical social structures that, I think, most anarchists would take issue with (ie, patriarchy, monarchy, etc.). His argument makes clear that humans, along with animals, engage in mutual aid, but (Prince) Kropotkin also continually emphasizes how such mutual aid is usually limited to particularistic conceptions of identity (ie, blue-collar workers will aid other blue-collar workers, serfs will help out other serfs, crabs will try to save their fellow crabs from unnecessary death), and as such seems rather limited (whether true or not). In this sense, I don't see Kropotkin's analysis as providing a basis for a 'natural' argument for anarchist society--though his conclusion certainly is more affirming than many sociological analyses I've come across....more

When I used to work at Bound Together, an anarchist bookshop in San Francisco, they teased me because I had never read this book by Kropotkin (aka the anarchist formerly known as prince). The concept just seemed so basic that it didn't seem necessary to read the damn thing. Mike Menser made me read it for a class he was teaching on social philosophy. I still don't think it's really worth your time though.

Wanna know the gist? Ok, societies work just as well, no; actually they often work better thWhen I used to work at Bound Together, an anarchist bookshop in San Francisco, they teased me because I had never read this book by Kropotkin (aka the anarchist formerly known as prince). The concept just seemed so basic that it didn't seem necessary to read the damn thing. Mike Menser made me read it for a class he was teaching on social philosophy. I still don't think it's really worth your time though.

Wanna know the gist? Ok, societies work just as well, no; actually they often work better through mutual cooperation than they do through competition. Evolution has actually favored cooperation in certain situations, and so therefore it is as efficient as competitive market based structures. Examples include bees and early trade guilds. Got it? Good, 'cause that's about it.The criticisms are obvious. Trade guilds functioned as a means of keeping people out as much as they were structured cooperatively, and they lost out evolutionarily, so they aren't as efficient as we thought eh? Oh and bees? I see your bees and raise you a lion. I'll throw in a shark for good measure cause that shit has lasted waaay longer than bees.

I don't think cooperation is a bad idea (obviously) but I think Kropotkin overplays his hand in thinking that he can defeat arguments for capitalism with a few historical examples…. But that's just me....more

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.There were many points mentioned that provided good support to the argument for mutual aid and the extension to the theories of Darwinism pertaining to the sociability of a species. These included the comparison of animals and human organization and civilization.

Despite the strong arguments the unfocused part of his work related to apparent views of kropotkin that contradict his main argument. Such opinions aligned with elitist, nationalist, and even racist views. Such views may have no effectThere were many points mentioned that provided good support to the argument for mutual aid and the extension to the theories of Darwinism pertaining to the sociability of a species. These included the comparison of animals and human organization and civilization.

Despite the strong arguments the unfocused part of his work related to apparent views of kropotkin that contradict his main argument. Such opinions aligned with elitist, nationalist, and even racist views. Such views may have no effect on his credibility at the time of this work among a Eurocentric audience but it would most certainly reduce his credibility now even if his overall message seem to have different intentions.

One of these contradictions include the comparison of certain races. He would note his belief that Europeans have superior intellectual capabilities than Native Americans and other indigenous ethnic groups. This can be viewed as a support of racism/nationalism by definition which is the belief that one race or nationality is superior to another.

Another example is very similar to the earlier mentioned is his belief that certain cultures or civilizations are superior or better than others. You would find this from areas where he would note "civilized" versus "uncivilized" cultures or nations. In many cases the uncivilized groups would embrace his ideals of communalism and mutual aid the most. A stronger argument would perhaps lift up such nations negatively classified because they embraced those ideals instead of simply contradict your argument by supporting the same elitist rhetoric.

Sociability, common ownership, and mutual aid were all arguments well supported in this work. There were many references of area within the animal kingdom and human civilization that not only showed that these ideas occurred but they were functional. Unfortunately the writer's tendency to embrace common thoughts of elitism clouded the premises of his cause....more

This is the edition I have. It's a reprint of the 1914 edition, and includes the preface to the 1914 edition. The book was not written as a unit--it was pieced together from essays published, in large part, in the journal The Nineteenth Century. There's a real need for a table of contents and index for this journal, which included a lot of work by prominent writers--literary criticism (some sensible, some quite absurd), philosophy, scientific work--a variety of subjects by prominent authors andThis is the edition I have. It's a reprint of the 1914 edition, and includes the preface to the 1914 edition. The book was not written as a unit--it was pieced together from essays published, in large part, in the journal The Nineteenth Century. There's a real need for a table of contents and index for this journal, which included a lot of work by prominent writers--literary criticism (some sensible, some quite absurd), philosophy, scientific work--a variety of subjects by prominent authors and also by anonymous authors.

Kropotkin pulled the Nineteenth Century articles together into a monograph for publication in 1902. I don't know whether he added bibliographic information, appendices, etc for the monograph. It's also not clear how much the book was altered for the 1914 edition.

Normally, when I'm reading a book which has appendices, I read them when I'm referred to them in the text (you know, the footnote that says 'see Appendix G'. I didn't do that in this case, and I regret it. The last appendix is an essay by T H Huxley, and by the time I read it, I'd forgotten how Kropotkin rebutted Huxley's arguments. I could have gone back and found the citation, and reread that part again: but it seemed too laborious. I may do this sometime--but if I had read the appendices at once, I wouldn't have needed to do the labor. So I'd recommend flipping back to the appendices, even if it DOES interfere with continuity. It'll save work later.

In his article from Natural History magazine from July, 1997, Stephen Jay Gould explains why "Kropotkin Was No Crackpot". What I wish he had done was gone on to publish a critical edition of the book, with updated versions of the scientific research Kropotkin himself cited, in light of 20th century additions to things like ethology.

To take one obvious example, Kropotkin states that gorillas are not social animals. At the time, no research on gorillas in the wild had been done. If it had, Kropotkin would have known that, except for unmated (mostly young) males, ALL gorillas live in social groups, composed of a male, several females, and their offspring. By the same token, if there had been observational research on orangutans, it would have been made clear that while adult male orangs are not social, mothers retain bonds with their offspring which are quite longlasting, amounting to as much as a quarter of the juveniles' average lifespans. A mother orangutan may have as many as three children of different ages with her nearly all the time, meaning that sibling bonds are important in childhood for survival and socialization.

There's need for updates about many such statements. At some points it's clear that some of Kropotkin's exaggerations are due to his enthusiasm for his subject--thus, for example, though many species of bees are social, some are solitary. And while it's true that the social bees are probably generally more successful, there was a limited understanding of the genetics of social insects until well after the widespread publication of Mendel's work. So a new appendix which demonstrates things like the haplodiploid genetics of social insects, and the fact that all inhabitants of colonies and hives are ONE family, with the queen not being at ALL genetically different from workers, soldiers, etc, and with the drone having haploid genetics, different from all his sisters and his mother, would be useful in regard to the question of why sociability developed in insects. As Gould would probably have said (judging from what he said about other subjects), it is trivially true that sociability benefits social insects. What needs explaining is why it developed in the FIRST place.

A lot of problems people have with Mutual Aid have more to do with linguistic and cultural elements which were current at the time. People who have read more nineteenth-century literature will probably have less problem with this than the average reader, but there would still be some problems. Some animal names Kropotkin uses, for example, are sheer mysteries to me. I can't analyze what he says about the creatures' lives if I can't identify the creatures. There's a clear need for a glossary--perhaps with pictures?

There are other problems with vocabulary and phrasing which involve Kropotkin using technical terminology which is no longer in use. Thus, for example, Kropotkin uses a form of triage created by progressivist anthropologists: the division of human societies into three stages: 'savage'/'barbarian'/'civilized'. This formulation has not been used for several decades, and it's often misunderstood. There are serious problems with the underlying concept, as there is with the concept of 'progress' as an evolutionary trend. There is no real reason to believe that societies will inevitably develop in certain directions, always by the same processes. The 'Hottentots' Kropotkin references (now called Khoisan) were never a single cultural entity. They share a common linguistic family: but so, after all, do all of Europe, and quite a bit of Asia and North Africa. Cultural matters like family structure, technology, etc vary widely within geographical regions shared by speakers of languages from the same family of languages. This was even more so at the time than it is now, when peoples around the world have been (often forcibly) incorporated into one society.

In fact, one of the issues that Kropotkin doesn't adequately deal with is that the differences between people acculturated into different societies are often greater than the similarities between them. Not all 'barbarians' EVER lived the same way. Differences such as how kinship is reckoned (say, patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilineal) can make substantial differences in who we feel we can turn to for aid, for example.

Indeed, I feel that Kropotkin has a basic misunderstanding of what a 'family' is. He rejects the concept of 'the patriarchal family' (one man, his wife/wives, and their children) which was current at the time, and is still used as an ideal by too many people. But he doesn't seem to recognize that this has almost certainly NOT been the definition of kinship for most of human tenure on the Earth, and in most societies. The concept of an 'extended family' is a backformation developed as a technical term to define people who did not live in such 'patriarchal families': but the felt need for such a term is recent: analagous to the need to develop the term 'silent movies' after 'talkies' prevailed. People didn't have the TERM 'extended family', because they felt that the concept was adequately conveyed by the term 'family' (or its equivalent in other languages). The need for a term to distinguish the 'nuclear' family from the 'extended' family came into existence only when people began to establish much smaller households (not smaller in building size, necessarily--just smaller in membership). When Aunt Tillie no longer lived in the same household, and when neolocal marriage customs were adopted, the DEFINITION of 'family' changed, and there was need for a new term to define the older conception.

At the time the articles on which this book was based were written, Kropotkin was living in Britain, which explains not only his idiomatic English, but also odd phrases like 'in this country, we...'. It's evident that he sometimes found English usages a little inconvenient. Thus, for example, he argues that a 'village' is not a dependent structure, grown up around the 'villa' of an aristocrat. This is strictly true: villages around the world are independent entities, and formed where they were needed. But the TERM 'village' is based on the assumption that villages WERE fiefdoms of servants, serfs, and other clients of aristocrats. This is true in several other Indo-European languages, as well. What's needed is a better term, and there is one in English: thorpe. 'Thorpe' refers to essentially the same sort of polity as 'village'--without the feudal implications.

The discussion of the development of 'free cities' in which the crafters and merchants dwelt, and which were independent of feudal/religious landlords in this book is more thorough than in many other sources, but less complete than in others. Kropotkin rebukes the citizens for not freeing the serfs who had only recently been enslaved when the cities started to form. This is true, but not complete, because cities served as refuges for escaped serfs. They were, unfortunately, forced to opt out of agriculture/pastoralism in order to obtain their freedom: but they could often find places in crafts and guilds.

There's a tendency to underrate educational institutions and medical institutions as elements in mutual aid. Both started, at least in Europe, as outgrowths of religious institutions. But the crafts and guilds really needed to establish such institutions on their own. Teaching apprentices 'craft secrets' can only go so far. Not only is there a risk that people who knew the secrets (how do you obtain that particular shade of blue? for example) would die without passing them on; there was also a need for collaboration in public works and in healing. Medical knowledge and sanitation are necessary for any large community to survive--and development of such things is too often neglected without an understanding of the nature and process of disease.

In arguing that one-on-one competition is not the primary factor in evolution, Kropotkin was more in accord with Darwin than with the 'social Darwinists' (many of whom had evidently not read Darwin). Darwin acknowledged that competition was actually quite rare in the lives of most creatures. He only argued that if competition took place at critical points in life (reproduction, childhood, sickness, drought, etc), it would have disproportionate effects. Darwin himself generally regarded males' competition for mates as the most critical form of competition, though he didn't deny the importance of other forms.

One thing Kropotkin realized was that 'survival of the fittest' (not a Darwinian term, by the way, though Darwin adopted it from Wallace) is NOT survival of creatures best fitted for ALL climes and times. Since competition to leave behind the largest number viable offspring can only favor creatures best fitted to current conditions, it cannot, by definition, create 'superior' creatures, UNLESS current conditions will likely prevail for the duration of a species' existence. One thing Kropotkin doesn't seem to have realized is that by keeping alive creatures 'unfit' for the current environment, qualities that would be useful in other environments may be preserved (think the lungfish in the drying-out pond, which have stiffened fins and can walk to another pond--a favorite example of Gould's)

Kropotkin argues something else which I wish he'd documented better. He insists that creatures have ways of limiting their reproduction rate, so that they do not produce too many offspring in good times to survive the bad times. This is indubitably true of some creatures (mostly the ones at the low fecundity end of the spectrum: the ones that have few offspring, but nurture those few to increase survival rates). There's also evidence that some creatures (including humans) have natural methods of preventing conception when times are bad (this is the primary reason why women with too little body fat become amenorrheal, for example, and therefore become infertile until their body fat goes up). But there are even better methods in nature. For example, did you know a female kangaroo can 'freeze' an embryo (not literally--it's not a matter of cold, just of slowing the maturation rate) in bad seasons, then reactivate the same pregnancy later? I'll wager Kropotkin didn't know the latter.

Another problem with this book is partly an inevitable problem with bibliography: Kropotkin could only cite sources that were already known (including work by his friends not yet published). A revised addition would include, as part of the new appendices, an updating on work which had been done since.

But it would also have had to include sources Kropotkin COULD have consulted, but apparently didn't. Thus, for example, though Kropotkin did cite several anthropological sources, he apparently didn't consult, or at least didn't quote, others. If he had read more of the works of Boas and his students, for example, he probably wouldn't have thought that the perversion of the potlatch from a means of redistributing unevenly distributed resources into an orgy of destruction was normal or natural. It's true that there were cases in quite a few places in which a 'rich' person's property was buried with the deceased, and others where the property was destroyed. This was, however, almost certainly a later development. In earlier times the personal property (which would NOT, by the way, include living things, and certainly not people,) would likely have been redistributed on a more-or-less regular basis (not only at funerals, but at weddings, initiations, seasonal ceremonies, etc). People would probably always have had SOME personal property (tools, mostly, including devices to make carrying easier). But things like food would always be shared...because the person who found a fruiting berry patch this time might not be the lucky one next time.

This book has had not only philosophical and other nonfiction sequelae, as I knew before I read it. Even if LeGuin hadn't specifically stated that she was beholden to Kropotkin, it would have been easy to figure out, for anyone who'd read The Dispossessed. It's not a linguistic influence (LeGuin has her own voice), but it's clearly a source of ideas and premises. ...more

There were two related things I found much more interesting about Mutual Aid than its thesis, which felt less than airtight (for example, w/r/t the animals section, sociability is not by any means equivalent to providing mutual aid; a fish may travel in a school to minimize personal risk without any "aid" to others in the school).

First, the implication of what the intellectual background was at the time - that the struggle for existence was thought to play out primarily by means of vicious intrThere were two related things I found much more interesting about Mutual Aid than its thesis, which felt less than airtight (for example, w/r/t the animals section, sociability is not by any means equivalent to providing mutual aid; a fish may travel in a school to minimize personal risk without any "aid" to others in the school).

First, the implication of what the intellectual background was at the time - that the struggle for existence was thought to play out primarily by means of vicious intraspecific competition, underestimating the role of the "elements" - was fascinating.

Second, the book made clear that what's become one of the left's primary campaigns, to remind, reassure, and convince us that we can be and are good to one another, against the screed of the economists, capitalists, clergy, and the greedy and their minions that we are irreparably vile and selfish, has been going on a long time. ...more

The essence of this book is about how species work together for mutual benefit, despite the Darwinian argument of competition adopted by the capitalist system.

Kropotkin argues that he does not find the bitter struggle for existence, among any other animal of the same species, except human beings. He points to Rouseau who saw love, peace and harmony in nature being destroyed by the ascendancy of man. Indeed he goes further by saying natural selection finds ways to avoid competition wherever possiThe essence of this book is about how species work together for mutual benefit, despite the Darwinian argument of competition adopted by the capitalist system.

Kropotkin argues that he does not find the bitter struggle for existence, among any other animal of the same species, except human beings. He points to Rouseau who saw love, peace and harmony in nature being destroyed by the ascendancy of man. Indeed he goes further by saying natural selection finds ways to avoid competition wherever possible.

For early man the clan was the main form of organisation and self restraint and self interest was sacrificed for the good of the clan. Out of this grew the concept of families and the risk of the more wealthy imposing their authority on the rest of the clan. In order to combat this, a new organisation called the village community was formed. This brought a common territory and common effort. The organisation recognised the family as a unit and the private accumulation of wealth, but this was strictly limited to moveable items. The land was still the common property of the tribe. They did not trade within their communities, but only with strangers.

As cities developed the peasants were largely ignored and they looked to the King for support. While helping them to thwart the Feudal owners the centralised State was established. By separating the city from the land a natural antagonism grew up.

Kropotkin argues that the State undermined all institutions which had previously found expression in industry and art. Political science and the law were all subject to State centralisation. He states that science now advocates that individual struggle against one another is a leading principle of nature. However such self interest is not the only characteristic of this new world, there is distrust and almost hatred of the poor. Since the abolition of slavery everyone now has the means to escape poverty, unless they are ruled by their own vices. It is interesting that he singles out the non-conformist church as uniting against the established church in support of the poor.

Due to the times in which this book was written it is very long winded with multiple examples, but he makes some interesting points which will resonate with many readers today. For any type of progress Kropotkin argues that mutual aid is much better than mutual struggle....more

Such an interesting book! I was most interested (of course) in the first two sections, which are about animals. He then goes into "savages", "barbarians", the medieval city, then his current time, which was early 1900s... less interesting, but still a good *thumbs up* on this book.

A eyeopener in today's world drunk with infallibility of individualism-in its narrow terminological sense. Kropotkin empirically debunks Darwinism, particularly social Darwinism by hundreds of examples of studies done on human societies & a range of species from the minutest of organisms to the biggest on earth. The book predominantly focuses on man's struggle for existence from the stone age to the dark ages, progressing on to the medieval period and finally ending with the modern times(latA eyeopener in today's world drunk with infallibility of individualism-in its narrow terminological sense. Kropotkin empirically debunks Darwinism, particularly social Darwinism by hundreds of examples of studies done on human societies & a range of species from the minutest of organisms to the biggest on earth. The book predominantly focuses on man's struggle for existence from the stone age to the dark ages, progressing on to the medieval period and finally ending with the modern times(late 19th century w.r.t the period in which the book was written). Concluding at each stage that mutual aid and support, and not mutual struggle, sustains life....more

I had this on my Kindle as a "backup" book for a while, because it was a free download from Project Gutenberg and I like Kropotkin pretty well (see some reviews I wrote of other books of his). I had chipped away at it piecemeal over time, on flights when I finished whatever other book I was reading and the like, but I recently went ahead and finished it (because I got a bunch of great free John Muir books as my new backups!).

This is an interesting hybrid sort of book. Kropotkin is an anarchistI had this on my Kindle as a "backup" book for a while, because it was a free download from Project Gutenberg and I like Kropotkin pretty well (see some reviews I wrote of other books of his). I had chipped away at it piecemeal over time, on flights when I finished whatever other book I was reading and the like, but I recently went ahead and finished it (because I got a bunch of great free John Muir books as my new backups!).

This is an interesting hybrid sort of book. Kropotkin is an anarchist and also a gentleman-scientist, and his goal in this book is to show how "mutual aid" plays an important role, even a pivotal role, in the natural world, in evolution, and among humanity. I think we today are a little more used to this idea, but Kropotkin was writing this book during the heyday of Social Darwinism, so I think it was a bolder statement to contemporaries.

The first few chapters are about mutual aid in the animal world. Elise and I have watched a lot of nature documentaries over the years, and it struck me while reading this that it was probably the late nineteenth-century equivalent of watching a nature documentary--Kropotkin talks in some detail about the social organization of very many different kinds of animals, enough that you start to build a little picture in your head. Another very striking aspect of this for me was how very little was known about the lives of fish and other sea creatures at this time. Kropotkin essentially passes over them by saying that we don't really know anything about them. That gave me a strong appreciation for Jacques Cousteau, and the very real way in which he opened up an entirely new world for people. A reminder of how lucky we are to be able to watch "Blue Planet" today.

The rest of the book is about as you'd expect, giving illustrations of cooperation from "savage" societies and modern societies, and talking about ways in which the modern state works against them. One part that was very interesting for me was Kropotkin's depiction of the medieval European "free city." He really paints the era of about 1100-1500 as a high point for human societal flourishing, with practices of mutual aid taking their greatest historical extent (basically, extended to the level of the city but not beyond). This interested me because I think the common depiction of this time period is as a dark and backward era preceding the flourishing of the Renaissance. Kropotkin essentially argues that the social practices of the 1100-1500 period were what allowed the Renaissance to occur, but by the time it really hit its stride, it was already starting to be crushed out by the rise of states. This is certainly a heterodox telling, but I am curious how much historical truth there is to it. Kropotkin specifically talks about how the historical narratives that are passed down tend to focus on grand events and in particular conflicts, and generally pass over the lived experience of the common man (which includes a great deal of solidarity and relatively little conflict). I am sure this is true to some extent--and also probably less controversial a statement today than in the late nineteenth century....more

I've found much to agree with and think about from the anarchists. And this work from Peter Kropotkin touches on science and evolution. It really covers ground very similar to what Richard Dawkins details most of a century later in The Selfish Gene: that cooperative behavior is a beneficial survival strategy and so any inherited traits that promote it will be favored by natural selection.

Kropotkin admits he is giving a somewhat rosy slant to his depictions of nature, and he seems wedded to a verI've found much to agree with and think about from the anarchists. And this work from Peter Kropotkin touches on science and evolution. It really covers ground very similar to what Richard Dawkins details most of a century later in The Selfish Gene: that cooperative behavior is a beneficial survival strategy and so any inherited traits that promote it will be favored by natural selection.

Kropotkin admits he is giving a somewhat rosy slant to his depictions of nature, and he seems wedded to a very narrow use of the word "competition," after criticizing other writers for narrow interpretations of other concepts in evolution, but this is all to his main purpose: to counter the interpretations of the so-called Social Darwinists who were very active at the time of this writing and sought to use Darwinian ideas to justify oppression, inequality, and deliberate selection and removal of the "unfit." Kropotkin's main point is that neither evolutionary theory nor observation of animal behavior and habitats supports these notions. In this he is absolutely correct.

Dense, at times tediously so, but definitely worth the effort, Mutual Aid is Kropotkin's response to Social Darwinism and its simplistic reduction of the nuanced Darwinian concept of "struggle" into the narrowly individualistic, each-against-all notion of "competition." As such, it is also a valuable corrective to contemporary scientific disciplines (evolutionary psychology and neuroscience come to mind) that seek to reduce all evidence of cooperation and altruism in nature to self-centered compDense, at times tediously so, but definitely worth the effort, Mutual Aid is Kropotkin's response to Social Darwinism and its simplistic reduction of the nuanced Darwinian concept of "struggle" into the narrowly individualistic, each-against-all notion of "competition." As such, it is also a valuable corrective to contemporary scientific disciplines (evolutionary psychology and neuroscience come to mind) that seek to reduce all evidence of cooperation and altruism in nature to self-centered competition in disguise, while also providing a scientific-seeming justification for the unbridled self-interest so central to capitalism.

It is evident that no review of evolution can be complete, unless these two dominant currents [i.e, the individual competition and the mutual struggle] are analyzed. However, the self-assertion of the individual or of groups of individuals, their struggles for superiority, and the conflicts which resulted therefrom, have already been analyzed, described, and glorified from time immemorial. In fact, up to the present time, this current alone has received attention from the epical poet, the annalist, the historian, and the sociologist. History, such as it has hitherto been written, is almost entirely a description of the ways and means by which theocracy, military power, autocracy, and, later on, the richer classes' rule have been promoted, established, and maintained. The struggles between these forces make, in fact, the substance of history. We may thus take the knowledge of the individual factor in human history as granted—even though there is full room for a new study of the subject on the lines just alluded to; while, on the other side, the mutual-aid factor has been hitherto totally lost sight of; it was simply denied, or even scoffed at, by the writers of the present and past generation. It was therefore necessary to show, first of all, the immense part which this factor plays in the evolution of both the animal world and human societies. Only after this has been fully recognized will it be possible to proceed to a comparison between the two factors. (231–2)

this is an wonderful account of an anarchist revolutionary finding support for his socvial values in nature. This book has been pretty much discarded by modern evolutionists (though with fond feelings by progressives), yet I think it has a lot of current value. it is a great counter argument to the idea that darwinism leads to "survival of the fittest" economic and political thinking.

Kropotkin was a dedicated biologist and really thought carefully about his wide ranging observations of nature. Ithis is an wonderful account of an anarchist revolutionary finding support for his socvial values in nature. This book has been pretty much discarded by modern evolutionists (though with fond feelings by progressives), yet I think it has a lot of current value. it is a great counter argument to the idea that darwinism leads to "survival of the fittest" economic and political thinking.

Kropotkin was a dedicated biologist and really thought carefully about his wide ranging observations of nature. I believe his general premise that co-operation is generally more important than competition to be accurate in ways that most evolutionists or social /political scientists still quite grasp. it has to do with my view of evolution as being a progressive, though not teleological process leading to more integration and complexity. the evolution of homo sapiens , in my view supports Kropotkins theory much more than current thinking in evolutionary psychology (though they seem to be getting closer to Kropotkin recently).

there is much that is wrong and much that kropotkin couldn't know, so this is not a good book to read if someone does not know evolutionary theory fairly well to begin with. But if you are interested in progressive issues and social justice and know your way around concepts like speciation, and selection pressure, I highly recommend this...more

“neither the crushing powers of the centralized State nor the teachings of mutual hatred and pitiless struggle which came, adorned with the attributes of science, from obliging philosophers and sociologists, could weed out the feeling of human solidarity, deeply lodged in men's understanding and heart, because it has been nurtured by all our preceding evolution.“ (p.245).

An expertly and comprehensively delivered counter to Social Darwinism. Kropotkin expresses his ideas on ethics and society very eloquently by thoroughly walking you through them and using examples of things that are just astounding.

Darwinism is often hugely oversimplified as being simply "survival of the fittest". Generally, people assume that this phrase is followed by the word "individual". Peter Kropotkin argues convincingly that in the most successful species, individuals cooperate rather than fight each other. It should be born in mind that this is a scientific work, not a political one. Kropotkin draws on his studies in Siberia and on secondary sources to show that this phenomenon extends to human early societies, inDarwinism is often hugely oversimplified as being simply "survival of the fittest". Generally, people assume that this phrase is followed by the word "individual". Peter Kropotkin argues convincingly that in the most successful species, individuals cooperate rather than fight each other. It should be born in mind that this is a scientific work, not a political one. Kropotkin draws on his studies in Siberia and on secondary sources to show that this phenomenon extends to human early societies, inferring perhaps the value of mutual aid at a larger scale. This is a great scientific and indeed philosophical work, although by its' very nature a challenge to work through....more

Kropotkin corrects the misreading of Darwin which lead to social Darwinism by providing heaps of historical evidence of the mutual aid principle at work amongst animals and humans at every stage of development. This makes for a dry read, and I am unsure if his history stands up to current insights.

Only at a few times does Kropotkin stop providing examples and starts explaining his argument. When he does though, the book shines. His account of human nature is an optimistic one. He manages to argKropotkin corrects the misreading of Darwin which lead to social Darwinism by providing heaps of historical evidence of the mutual aid principle at work amongst animals and humans at every stage of development. This makes for a dry read, and I am unsure if his history stands up to current insights.

Only at a few times does Kropotkin stop providing examples and starts explaining his argument. When he does though, the book shines. His account of human nature is an optimistic one. He manages to argue for a mutualism which leaves ample room for individual freedom and initiative. Something our current culture could use a bit more of, imho. ...more

It's hard for me to give such a low rating to an Anarchist classic, but honestly, this book was very boring. The main idea behind the book is that cooperation increases the fitness rate of a species. Kropotkin uses some examples of ancient through modern civilizations and adds some examples for animals as well.

But honestly, the examples he gives are plentiful and boring, and his science is sketchy at best. Kropotkin might have thought that referencing everything was overkill but he was wrong. YIt's hard for me to give such a low rating to an Anarchist classic, but honestly, this book was very boring. The main idea behind the book is that cooperation increases the fitness rate of a species. Kropotkin uses some examples of ancient through modern civilizations and adds some examples for animals as well.

But honestly, the examples he gives are plentiful and boring, and his science is sketchy at best. Kropotkin might have thought that referencing everything was overkill but he was wrong. You can't write a "scientific" book like this one without giving a referennce to the science you are quoting.

I can't get enough; with the research of Lynn Margulis and other scientists, from endosymbiotic theory (evoutionary cell biology) to chaos theory, the age-old nonsense of T.H. Huxley and, to a lesser extent, Darwin, concerning the competitiveness or Struggle for Existence in "human nature" has to be reconsidered for hominid evolution, as well as evolutionary biology generally. The subaltern trend in sociobiology begins here, in this book, the anarchist Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid."

I really enjoyed reading this book. Like most of Kropotkin's work, it reads like a text book at times, and at others Kropotkin's moral drive shines through.

He covers a lot of territory in making a case against "the survival of the fittest" mentality of popular Darwinism, maybe an overwhelming amount, but in the end integrates many different fields of study to support his case of Mutual Aid being an important factor of evolution among all plants and animals.

Excellent book, excellent ideas, but quite dry, and as I read this years after my much more direct introduction to anarchism, I found myself nodding along, already familiar with the idea presented, and not really learning anything new. Still, a very worthwhile book, but perhaps of more value to those not already familiar with the ideas behind anarchism.

Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) was a geographer, a zoologist, and one of Russia's foremost anarchists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government. Because of his title of prince, he was known by some as "the Anarchist Prince". Some contemporaries saw him as leading a near perfect life, including OPyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin (Пётр Алексеевич Кропоткин) was a geographer, a zoologist, and one of Russia's foremost anarchists. One of the first advocates of anarchist communism, Kropotkin advocated a communist society free from central government. Because of his title of prince, he was known by some as "the Anarchist Prince". Some contemporaries saw him as leading a near perfect life, including Oscar Wilde, who described him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ which seems coming out of Russia." He wrote many books, pamphlets and articles, the most prominent being The Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Workshops, and his principal scientific offering, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. He was also a contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition....more

“The mutual-aid tendency in man has so remote an origin, and is so deeply interwoven with all the past evolution of the human race, that is has been maintained by mankind up to the present time, notwithstanding all vicissitudes of history.”
—
30 likes

“In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival.”
—
1 likes